The continual desecration and sanitation of the sport

Slowly but surely all the circuits are just becoming open car parks. Even the curbs are becoming wider and flatter, and I'm sure they will all eventually be removed and replaced with painted on curbs, as real ones are too risky and uncomfortable for the drivers and cause accidents. This slow systematic desecration is stripping the tracks of their character, and the sport is being diluted to the point where there is no longer and risk or thrill in watching, as the biggest draw of Motorsport is the spectacle and the risk, and racing in open car parks there is no real risk.

In the past if a driver made a small mistake and ran off the track, we would see spectacular sights, there was risk and challenge, and punishment of mistakes, but now when they run wide nothing happens, they just drive back on and keep going. This was all done under the guise of 'safety' because the primadonna's want their lives to be made as easy as possible, and its getting worse.

The tracks are now so wide, there is no sensation of speed, combine with the flat curbs, and endless tarmac run off areas, the sport has been sanitised to death, the thrill and risk, is all but gone. India was a perfect example of this, it just looked horrific. I blame the drivers as much as the sports administrators. Just wait until they close the cockpits.

The stupid multiple engine and gearbox rules have how all but removed the reliability components of the sport. The random surprises of the past a strong element of the sport, is all but gone and replaced with predictability.

Then we have the over the top defensive driving regulations, where its almost forbidden to defend position and actually fight any more, and drivers essentially must let an overtaking car past if it only has a wheel along side. The sport managed 70 odd years without such rules so there was no need for this over regulation. If it resulted in accidents, then so be it, that's the drivers choice, let them fight and crash, its their job to entertain us, that's why they get paid so much.

They basically no longer race in the rain, as soon as it starts raining charlie panics and stops the race because someone might crash. In the past they raced in far worse conditions in cars and circuits far less safe, the risk aversion is out of control.

In every aspect of the sport, its getting worse. Where will it stop and most importantly will it ever be reversed??

The sport managed 70 odd years without such rules so there was no need for this over regulation. If it resulted in accidents, then so be it, that's the drivers choice, let them fight and crash, its their job to entertain us, that's why they get paid so much.

Guess you weren't around when drivers crashed and died or you wouldn't make such an ignorant comment.

I basically agree with the opening post. I wouldn't wish to see any more deaths or serious injuries (having seen too many already), but the 'sport' has probably gone too far in terms of risk reduction. No-one was ever held at gunpoint and forced to race F1 cars and the risk averse nature of modern F1 is quite laughable sometimes. Increasingly there is less and less to admire when we see a sport which is safer than driving to Asda for the weeks shopping.....

Ye I rememeber Michaels car bouncing wildly into the air through the gravel, but now sadly that would not happen, he would just cut the track and maybe gain time. So sad. We need stronger administration whos priority is to protect the integrity of the sport but sadly these suits main priority is money. They sold out the sport.

I agree that the sport needs to be safe, but these cars are very safe, we've had people crash at very high speeds and come out unscathed. The asphalt runoffs and sterilized tracks are completely unnecessary.

I was just watching some Aussie V8's and those cars literally looked faster and more intense to drive than F1.....Does it get more backwards than that?

I agreed with everything up until the part about over regulating defensive manouevers, unless we are talking about Indycar.

As F1 becomes more popular, it must cater to a broader audience. Most people would be turned off of F1 if the death rates were as high as they were in the 60's. Obviously you never want people to be hurt or killed, but on most modern tracks you aren't punished at all for running off the track (as in, damaging your car).

I really don't understand why the Buddh circuit (and COTA by the looks of it) have those super-wide corner entries. It doesn't seem to help overtaking at all and it makes the track look ridiculously wide.

Ye I rememeber Michaels car bouncing wildly into the air through the gravel, but now sadly that would not happen, he would just cut the track and maybe gain time. So sad. We need stronger administration whos priority is to protect the integrity of the sport but sadly these suits main priority is money. They sold out the sport.

I think formation of a new steering committee of eighteen representatives from tripartite is first attempt to have it corrected. Whether they will succeed remans to be seen. Unfortunately I doubt it, because core interest of a commercial holder is diametrically on a collison course with vision of racing most of us want. F1 branch of FiA needs a complete overhaul, and new people in.

Quite apart from the "risk" aspect, the televised product nowdays looks so precise, clean and sterile.

Anyone who's done any motorsport (as I have), even a rented gokart, or driven an F1 car (as I have), or taken a ride in a 2 seater (as I have) knows that these things are anything but clean and pure.
The engines/gearbox/suspension etc... all contribute to a rawness of grunts, bangs, vibrations, pops and a totally of harshness.
The ride itself is anything but pure smoothness, instead being more towards crude coarse and harsh. The impression of violence. (Formula Renault in particular I have no love for the vibration).

You dont get that on TV.
At all.
Its like slotcars. Slick, new and polished.

The commentators talk often about how the drivers have to be fit to withstand the forces involved.
But you cant see it.

In every aspect of the sport, its getting worse. Where will it stop and most importantly will it ever be reversed??

Being in charge of safety of F1 is a poisoned chalice. You make it safer and the fans complain, you try and maintain an element of risk and you risk the wrath of the media if/when someone crashes in the rain - and imagine the fallout if there were to be another tragedy in F1 and you could have prevented it.

Doubt there's many who could resist taking the easy option of making the sport safer. Personally I agree with you OP, risk is an inherent part of F1 and always has been. There's a higher risk of death in karting & the junior formulae, yet all the drivers have made it to F1 regardless. The question is, what is an acceptable risk level for Formula 1? Are you, say, willing to accept one death or serious injury every 10 years?

F1 (or any other motosport) will never be safe 100 percent, maybe if they would drive in tanks it would be okay. It should stay risky forever. As Kimi said every other driver knows how risky it is when they decided to drive, so it doesn't change anything for him.

You don't need circuits to be unsafe to make racing more challenging. For example, when racing on a street circuit with concrete barriers, drives do very well at avoiding them in general. You don't need to have concrete barriers everywhere, just a rule that says if you go off the track your race is over (as though you had hit a concrete barrier and wrecked the car). Sure, for a couple of races you'll see many drivers being removed from races and everyone will say it's a stupid rule but, like all changes, drivers will get used to it and the fans will appreciate the talent of the drivers more.

Great thread and totally agree. The way the cars and especially the tracks have gone in the last few years is a disgrace. The cars have got more safe yet they have reduced power and increased grip. The reliability bullshit has also been taken too far. I missed the thrill of the cars being designed to run on the limit and you never knew if the finely tuned and temprimental beasts would last to the end. None of this coast to the finish now because our engine has to last for 2 more races.....

I brought up the reliabilty point before but unfortunatley some idiots like it that way. 24 cars safely circulating without risk of faliure is better than any retirements at all because "we get to see the cars and not sitting on the side of the track. waaa waaa waaa.

But the most ridiculous thing is the tracks. Tilke should be blamed for designing shithouse tracks that all look the same. And the FIA should take some of the blame for the car park run offs. With the barrier technology we have today the tracks should be more daring and challenging than ever before. The fact that 30 years ago cars were racing on the Osterriechring without run offs and crappy barriers and today we have the indian car park is pure balls.

Quite apart from the "risk" aspect, the televised product nowdays looks so precise, clean and sterile.

Anyone who's done any motorsport (as I have), even a rented gokart, or driven an F1 car (as I have), or taken a ride in a 2 seater (as I have) knows that these things are anything but clean and pure.The engines/gearbox/suspension etc... all contribute to a rawness of grunts, bangs, vibrations, pops and a totally of harshness.The ride itself is anything but pure smoothness, instead being more towards crude coarse and harsh. The impression of violence. (Formula Renault in particular I have no love for the vibration).

You dont get that on TV.At all.Its like slotcars. Slick, new and polished.

The commentators talk often about how the drivers have to be fit to withstand the forces involved.But you cant see it.

This is true to a certain extent, but F1 cars today are very precise indeed if you compare them to even the pre-grooved cars of before 98. Especially in this era where smooth driving and precise cornering are rewarded much more than flinging your car with a late braking move and a bit of opposite lock. The most important and pressing problem is still, the aerodynamics and handling on these cars. These cars are way way too precise for proper racing to occur. The amount of downforce generated and the massive wings within wings are causing these cars to become too predictable for a proper race to occur. The engineers are always 3 steps ahead of the regulations and always find a way to make their cars more and more precise.

Also, I am very strongly against some of the stupid rules that are in place :1. The no driving if there is a drop of rain rule.

2. The terrible joke we have for tyres which dont allow a racing driver to express himself. One lock up on a hard braking move and the commentary team is up in arms about how the tyres are finished.

3. The parc ferme rules between qualifying and race - Why use the same tyres and setup that you qualified on ? What purpose does it serve other than artificially create a show ? I personally loved the allout 1 hour qualifying battles, even if they started off slowly, since they built up to a great climax almost every time and we got to see the fastest drivers driving their backsides off each Saturday without having to worry about setups, over heating, locking a tyre etc.

4. Circuits, even the classic circuits like Spa being given tarmac runoffs. This encourages drivers to go flat out without thinking about risk / reward. Earlier when a driver thought about taking a fast corner, he would have to weigh in the very real risk of going in too hot and losing 5-10 seconds and a front wing in the gravel. This directly affects the quality of wheel to wheel racing as everyone is now just flat out anyway.

5. DRS. Enough said. A push to pass button seems straight out of a video game. Now we dont see a driver trying to outbrake his opponent into a tricky corner, switching lines etc that often.

The safety issue doesn't have to be binary. Of course no one wants to see a driver hurt, but whats wrong with a car ending up in the gravel trap and out of the race if a driver stuffs up a corner?

I want to see cars and circuits where the cars can't go through corners like Eau Rouge (as an example, there are a lot of corners in F1 that are now neutered) flat out. I want to see the drivers skills and bravery determining how fast he can go through the sequence, and if he buggers it up then tough. Just watching the cars go through corners like that bouncing off the rev limiter, and only losing 0.1s if they don't get it right, just isn't as exciting.

The safety issue doesn't have to be binary. Of course no one wants to see a driver hurt, but whats wrong with a car ending up in the gravel trap and out of the race if a driver stuffs up a corner?

I want to see cars and circuits where the cars can't go through corners like Eau Rouge (as an example, there are a lot of corners in F1 that are now neutered) flat out. I want to see the drivers skills and bravery determining how fast he can go through the sequence, and if he buggers it up then tough. Just watching the cars go through corners like that bouncing off the rev limiter, and only losing 0.1s if they don't get it right, just isn't as exciting.

This indeed.Safety is fine and good. We just want to see laptime / car punishment for getting things wrong, and some proper track challenges...

The only things I'd like to see are the tracks being made tougher. The quality of drivers are so good, you have to make them hard for them, to separate the good from the great. Make the slightest errors get punished by a trip across grass or gravel.
I'd like to see more power and less aero/grip. The cars seem too easy to drive but a testament to how good they all are. Make them harder to drive on the edge all the time- separates the good from the great again.
And less penalties and a way of improving the cars capabilities to clear water in the wet

- Narrower track : Austin track is terrible, i had never seen a track with so much width. They are only three races where you can say " damn, these drivers are awesome " it's Monaco, Singapore and Suzuka.
- More gravel or grass
- Narrower FW ( it's sad to see than a lot of battle end up with a puncture because of these large FW )
- No DRS
- Get rid of tyres rules : if you want to do all the races with the hard tyres it's OK. If you want to make 2 stops and race with the softer tyres it's OK.

these kind of threads depress me. Just like when I end up randomly youtubing previous era's of F1. I'll still always watch F1 though.

Just youtubed A1 Ring. Lots of power and speed these cars had while sliding around. The battles were so exciting those years. Even if a car was stuck behind another car, the moves and anticipation of what comes next kept you glued on the TV. Nowadays the car would just DRS by, in the past it would someway somehow press or force itself by in spectacular fashion while having the wheels on the edge of desaster, right next to grass and gravel. Just youtube A1 Ring, if you get past all the computer game videos you will find great racing every year F1 was there.

I agreed with everything up until the part about over regulating defensive manouevers, unless we are talking about Indycar.

As F1 becomes more popular, it must cater to a broader audience. Most people would be turned off of F1 if the death rates were as high as they were in the 60's. Obviously you never want people to be hurt or killed, but on most modern tracks you aren't punished at all for running off the track (as in, damaging your car).

I really don't understand why the Buddh circuit (and COTA by the looks of it) have those super-wide corner entries. It doesn't seem to help overtaking at all and it makes the track look ridiculously wide.

And there is the ‘problem’ in a nutshell. It is now ‘mainstream’, certainly in the last 10-20 years it has gone from the preserve of the Motorsport fan/petrol head – to general sports fan. Everything is now part of ‘The Show’ – so we get virtually a spec series, rule changes to make it exciting. The die has been cast. We can’t go back to how it was when in my opinion it was The Pinnacle. However, there are other series out there – the newly reformed WEC will continue to grow, provided it is run & promoted in the right way – and with Porsche coming in 2014, things could be good.

And there is the ‘problem’ in a nutshell. It is now ‘mainstream’, certainly in the last 10-20 years it has gone from the preserve of the Motorsport fan/petrol head – to general sports fan. Everything is now part of ‘The Show’ – so we get virtually a spec series, rule changes to make it exciting. The die has been cast. We can’t go back to how it was when in my opinion it was The Pinnacle. However, there are other series out there – the newly reformed WEC will continue to grow, provided it is run & promoted in the right way – and with Porsche coming in 2014, things could be good.

Any alternative series will not have the same appeal unless they have the best drivers among them as well. I'm not too enthused by a series that has F1 failures doing well in them. It makes you question the standard of skills. Mind you, I fully admit that some drivers do a lot better in one racing series as opposed to another.

The sport has seen a decline in my eyes once the driving force to the sports evolution has been the commercial interests and in turn the wider fans (not the hard core ones).

Some of the recent developments to improve overtaking has been disappointing. I like the KERS system. Both drivers can use it in a fight but they don't have it available over a full lap. However, the DRS is an absolute joke IMO. Same for the tires earlier this year. I have a distinct feeling that the tires have been quietly and gradually changed resulting in the racing becoming more predictable towards season's end. Yes, it may be that the teams have sussed the tires, but I doubt this. Pirelli have been very quiet about the tires and I think it's just that they've changed their tune. If they had the same attitude as earlier this year, they'd have already been announcing how they'd be making the tires challenging for the last three races in order to create some excitement for season's end. However, not a hoot along those lines.

I too agree that asphalt run-offs have taken things too far since it's currently being abused left, right and center by the drivers. The way out of that would be to sanction the abuse in consistent fashion. This would be a nightmare for the stewards during the course of a race. The only possible way would be electronically, i.e., the cars are retarded in some way once they are electronically detected as having gone too far wide during a lap.

The cars aren't any less demanding to drive. The demands are just different. This has been said by multiple retired drivers who have tried driving the new ones. JYS gave a notable opinion in this regard in his last exclusive Autosport interview, I think it was.

Mostly agree with OP. Unfortunately there is not much a random fan can do apart from switching to a different series.

Recently re-watched 1998 A1 ring duel between MSC and MH! That was pure excellence, even with MSC eventually running wide! How often do we see stuff like this these days?

I think you forgot to mention key point - running wide and damaging his front wing in the process!

Schumi was faster as he was on two-stop strategy against one-stopping Mika, but couldn't get past. Well, then he went wide and had to make early stop (he probably had some 5-10 laps of fuel left). Nowadays similar going-wide means you are out of that battle for few laps, then you are back just behind the car in front.

But the most ridiculous thing is the tracks. Tilke should be blamed for designing shithouse tracks that all look the same. And the FIA should take some of the blame for the car park run offs. With the barrier technology we have today the tracks should be more daring and challenging than ever before.

I wouldn't put ALL the blame on Tilke, though. He's in a pretty specific position nowadays. Every now and then, some influentual people from all over the world (in our ends we would call them "local sheriffs") call into your office for having a dream about a "phenomenal new racing track, which would become a reference for years to come". OK, that's fine - so far. Things however turn into less-than-fine, when that piece of land, where the new track supposedly would be on, is nothing but a c**p piece of marshlands or desert. And mostly flat, of course.

I agree that most of his tracks could be "updated" into more firendly versions. However, one can only change the bits of tarmac; it's pretty much impossible to change anything else. Nowadays you could make a monumental 15 kms track with 140 corners of any kind, new kind of Nordshleife, so to speak - but if it existed in same location as Sakhir, Yeongam or Shanghai, it would look just as bleak as any of those "hyper modern" tracks.

I basically agree with the opening post. I wouldn't wish to see any more deaths or serious injuries (having seen too many already), but the 'sport' has probably gone too far in terms of risk reduction. No-one was ever held at gunpoint and forced to race F1 cars and the risk averse nature of modern F1 is quite laughable sometimes. Increasingly there is less and less to admire when we see a sport which is safer than driving to Asda for the weeks shopping.....

I disagree with Jackie "Corporate blah, blah, blah" Stewart about a lot of things, but where I do agree with him is that making the sport unsafe doesn't add to the show for the fans or the respect one has for the driver.

The respect we show for the drivers is due to the skills they display. The skills of the driver are shown by a number of things, e.g. driving consistently quick laps, keeping head up when things aren't going well, showing judgement and decisiveness when overtaking etc. Finishing the race alive should be presumed.

And, yes, driving to Asda may well be statistically more dangerous that driving in a Formula 1 race...does that mean you respect the driving skills of Asda shoppers more because of the element of danger? I suspect those stats are an indication we should continue to strive to make driving on roads safer, not to make motorsport more dangerous.

While I sort of agree, the thing is that the tracks can't win. Street circuits are either labelled as "dangerous" or "boring" while regular circuits are "mickey mouse", "not dangerous enough" or "too easy". You can't have it both ways.

I've often wondered why, in such a technologically advanced sport, that a technological solution hasn't been invented to "punish" going off the track a little bit. Like having a sensor on the car that can detect when they cross the white line with all four wheels. If they do, it idles the engine until they cross back onto the track. Same basic effect as a gravel trap but without the danger.

Don't blame Tilke.He is told what he must design into the course by the FIA.

The sport has been sanitizing for some time, mostly by the rules.Driving skill has been reduced to finger dexterity on the steering wheel.KERS and DRS rules are only surpassed by the "Must-Use-Wrong-Tyre" rule for stupidity.

Nothing against adding more safety devices in cars, but what they are doing with modern tracks is definitely too much IMO. Also, if cars are getting safer, tracks are getting safer, why are they making cars slower, less powerful and easier to drive at the same time? Will we get 16 year olds driving F1 cars in the next 10 years?

It's not about reincorporating danger, but about bringing back the element of possible failure if you make a mistake. It is not acceptable that you just can run wide off the track and keep your position if you take a corner way to fast or make another big mistake. That doesn't mean there have to be barriers next to the track or gravel zones only - you could do for example a few metres of grass/gravel before the tarmac run off. In addition, this would also show the speed of the cars better than just running on an endless tarmac parking lot. Drivers have changed their approach because mistakes remain without consequences, and they will revert back if they face a track where mistakes are punished.

It's not about reincorporating danger, but about bringing back the element of possible failure if you make a mistake. It is not acceptable that you just can run wide off the track and keep your position if you take a corner way to fast or make another big mistake. That doesn't mean there have to be barriers next to the track or gravel zones only - you could do for example a few metres of grass/gravel before the tarmac run off. In addition, this would also show the speed of the cars better than just running on an endless tarmac parking lot. Drivers have changed their approach because mistakes remain without consequences, and they will revert back if they face a track where mistakes are punished.

But all you'd get from that would be drivers scared to take risks, hence even less excitement.

I think you forgot to mention key point - running wide and damaging his front wing in the process!

Schumi was faster as he was on two-stop strategy against one-stopping Mika, but couldn't get past. Well, then he went wide and had to make early stop (he probably had some 5-10 laps of fuel left). Nowadays similar going-wide means you are out of that battle for few laps, then you are back just behind the car in front.

Yes I am well aware he damaged his front wing and that was exactly the point I tried to make - the price of pushing too much!

Surely if the consequences are low you take more risks not the contrary?

I am with you for having something on the immediate outside of the track for discouraging drivers to go there. But I hold that view because it's not fair to have them shortcutting and even overtaking using it, it's not going to bring us more wheel-to-wheel battles. May force cleaner driving though.

The material outside of the track can't be grass nor gravel though as it's been demonstrated they aren't safe, sadly. I think they had a special material that is safe in Paul Ricard, it ruins the tyres or something, not sure why that hasn't been adopted in other tracks.

But all you'd get from that would be drivers scared to take risks, hence even less excitement.

First, my thesis is that a bit-less-than-optimally-safe track (for example with the gravel strip I mentioned) doesn't reduce overall safety because drivers will adapt their driving. Second, drivers who nevertheless take risks and master it with skill will be rewarded more - or punished more in case of a mistake/lacking skill, just like it should be.

Apart from that, I'm not really sure that drivers would be "scared" - do you remember when Villeneuve and Zonta (I believe) decided to take Eau Rouge without lifting ? These crazy elements just don't exist on these new tracks.

The material outside of the track can't be grass nor gravel though as it's been demonstrated they aren't safe, sadly. I think they had a special material that is safe in Paul Ricard, it ruins the tyres or something, not sure why that hasn't been adopted in other tracks.

Tungsten asphalt blend, and it's mostly there to provide retardation for the cars without beaching them in sandpits, not to encourage driving within the track limits.

Regarding the tracks I think things have actually improved as Korea, India and now Austin are clearly better than the previous batch of Abu Dhabi, Valencia and Bahrain... now that was an all-time low, glorified start-stop mega car parks, seas of asphalt. These newer tracks at least have big elevation changes and several challenging corners.

It's just a question of the car regulations making them look racier in some way, particularly when they're driving on their own, it's true they don't look on the edge. I love the strategical element of the drivers looking after the tyres and some drivers and cars being better at it than others, but perhaps the Pirellis aren't right for the other important elements of the show.

F1 currently has no innovation left due to locked rules that just encourage aerodynamic development. F1 was incredibly fun to watch when cars used to slide around corners, and there were not these ridiculous front wings.